Re: Scott Mikalauskas : Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:16 am
DrFeelgood wrote:
Your views are most certainly considered, sir. They are also extremely aggressive, accusatory, and inflammatory, and I don't think you actually believe that when you post something like that, it is for the good of the thread and not to simply condescend whoever you're aiming your gun at. So don't be surprised when people don't read on. I'm not the first to call you out that that, and by heck I won't be the last.
My original comment, for clarity, was built on the basis that:
1. I have never seen Cobb have a good game with the whistle
2. I have never seen Mikalauskas have a good game with the whistle
3. Cobb came through a new RFL initiative called the cadets and was the first full time graduate
4. I wondered if Mikalauskas did the same
5. If so, I also wondered if it was the RFL looking after their initiatives so they can post success stories from their work.
I would hope most people could spot that, and I apologise if you could not (or more probably chose not). I don't often get the time in my work day to post long posts a la Ferocious Aadvark, save for the odd occasion when I'm eating my lunch at my desk with tomato soup all round my gob now.
My original comment, for clarity, was built on the basis that:
1. I have never seen Cobb have a good game with the whistle
2. I have never seen Mikalauskas have a good game with the whistle
3. Cobb came through a new RFL initiative called the cadets and was the first full time graduate
4. I wondered if Mikalauskas did the same
5. If so, I also wondered if it was the RFL looking after their initiatives so they can post success stories from their work.
I would hope most people could spot that, and I apologise if you could not (or more probably chose not). I don't often get the time in my work day to post long posts a la Ferocious Aadvark, save for the odd occasion when I'm eating my lunch at my desk with tomato soup all round my gob now.
You surely can't be such a tender soul that sees personal affrontery and Vaderesque evil in every word? One of us needs to calm down but it's not me. I was, and am, objecting to hyperbolic writing off of match officials, and in particular even writing down a theory that a ref might be given a Final despite being useless, just to somehow post a "success story". The most bizarre part being the failure to explain how appointing a known total incompetent to make a porridge of a big game might work as a "success story" to post.
There were until recently I think only 4 full-time refs, and now Cobb (and Smith) have been promoted, but Mikalauskas is still part-time. There's no reason or justification for writing him off (or Cobb, for that matter). I remember a very similar situation with James Child when he first came on the scene, but he has grown into the job and I think he's a highly competent ref now.
I have no time for silly conspiracy theories, so I do tend to ridicule them. You try to make it sound like a reasonable thing to suggest; it wasn't.
Dealing specifically with the Final, having watched it again, I think he made the vast majority of decisions well enough, and it was only several inconsistencies (aided and abetted on occasion by his touchies) that were the problem. But, I disagree that this means he was promoted beyond his ability, overall the game flowed reasonably, there was not one single major mistake, the players were kept under control and he kept a lid on things, and the key point is he didn't have any influence on the outcome.
Whilst it was a Final, and so a step up, it wasn't the Superbowl. There was no reason not to give him the game and with hindsight I still say the same. Hopefully he'll have watched the video and gone through it inside the department, and will come on for it.
